Reading the thread, here are my £0.02.
As the co-author of the provenance vocabulary, we aim to produce a useful vocab, so we provide convenient constructs like humanactor and NonHumanActor.
For our standard work, we aim to provide a core vocab, for the sake of the core, we don't need convenient constructs, but only the core ones, no?
For our standard work, interoperability is the main focus, and don't see the use cases driving that. If they want, ppl can use the provenance vocabulary to express human and non-human, whose superclass should be totally interoperable with agent from prov. this should be the way forward,no? Using our standard as the bridge for interoperability rather than trying to cover everything.
Finally,I think we should use these use cases to reflect our definition of agent, whether it can cover all the cases, whether we need to loosen it up or anything.
I am against sub-typing. I think this should be left with specific domains. And what we know, maybe one day there will be something inbetween of human and non-human. Use your imagination:)
Have a good weekend, guys!
--jun
Sent from my iPad
On 18 Feb 2012, at 00:49, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The distinction is relevant in the domain-specific interpretation of
> the provenance, but not to the provenance model itself."
> +1
>
> I think its the job of PROV to identify agents, its the responsibility
> of a domain specific interpretation to describe what that agent is.
>
> Eric
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> Are there any differences in provenance attributes for Human vs NonHuman agents?
>>
>> Are there any provenance relations that apply specifically to Human or NonHuman agents but not both?
>>
>> If not, then I would argue that from the perspective of the core provenance model there is no difference between a Human or NonHuman agent. They are treated as simply Agents.
>>
>> The distinction is relevant in the domain-specific interpretation of the provenance, but not to the provenance model itself.
>>
>> --Stephan
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 6:03 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> At yesterday's call was an attempt at a proposal at renaming the agent classes for clarity, which seemed to have consensus on the email list but not on the call.
>>>
>>> The discussion opened up to wider discussion on agents and there was a question on use cases on agent. I would like to note that there was already an issue raised and resolved around this typing. The issue defined several use cases and identified prior work. The issue was resolved by the introduction of the definition of agent and its types.
>>>
>>> The ISSUE-134 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/134
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>